Quality over quantity folks. What do you reckon?
Quite often I've taken hom a CD with 15 or 16 tracks on it, only to find that it's full of weak tracks, segues, reprises etc - basically, 7 or 8 strong tacks and the rest dull filler.

Give me a shorter album, with 9 killer tracks any day.
Do you think the fact that CDs hold more music, that true classic albums are now rare?
Every time a greatest albums thread is started, the albums that appear most are 70's and 80's albums, when vinyl ruled. Prince's Lovesexy, Stevie's Songs In The Key etc.
What do y'all think? And name a CD you have in your collection you think would've been a killer if it had been trimmed down.

Good point.

yes.


show me an album over 45 minutes and i'll show you some filler.

yes

Hmmm... I never thought about it this way. I think you're onto something.

Does anyone else miss the really big pictures, posters, lyrics, etc. that accompanied LPs? Or are you all satisfied with CD packaging?

Lammastide said:

my prince and grace jones vinyl collection is immaculate. yeah maybe i'm just old school but i don't even own half the stuff on cd. only thing that comes 1/2 way close to as cool as a shaped picture disc is maybe the "Man o War" promo single. VINYL RULES!

Lammastide said:

1. Hell no I love the VINYL VINYL! So much better BASS!!! The bass can get real high and keep the beat without bumpin so hard u can only hear vibration like from CD's

2. Packaging is different than CD's. Like my Missy from 1998 had a big picture in it, but not all the pictures that the CD had. I cant really tell. It was also in B&W.

3. Albums that wouldve been good on just one vinyl?

Janet - All 4 U wouldve been smoother.

Jay Z - Blueprint 2. WAY 2 much filler.

Kelis - Wanderland

I do agree that there's something great about an album 45 minutes or under with only 8 to 10 tracks. But I also know plenty of albums over this time length that are perfect all the way through. Don't even get me started on a list.

And as for sound quality- give me cd's any day.

I do think it did.also Artists have been forced to add more but not paid the full price with adding that extra track or two that makes up those 77 Minutes on Disc.it feels like it's missing something.I Miss the Album&Home feel of it.

Yes it fucking did! Albums are a collection of songs and don't have to be a specific length to be entertaining. It is typical of the music industry these days who are typically dumb in assuming music is a product and not a artform. Some of my fave albums only contained 7 or 8 tracks, ie the likes of Zeppelin and Funkadelic. Did i feel cheated?! Not at all.

Rave un2 The Joy Fantastic is a typical example of this quantity of quality mentality. The irony is, it hurts the music, critics will give the album negative reviews and it will hurt probably hurt sales, so why does the industry insist on doing it?! They're retarded that's why.

The best example of a truly great album that was turned into a merely decent one was The Stones Voodoo Lounge album. Their big comeback album couldve sat proudly along with some oftheir classic 60s and 70s stuff if they had trimmed it to 10/11 songs. Instead they dragged the whole thing out and it suffered massively.

The industry is a fucking joke.

'Did CD kill the classic album?'


stop living in the past

Christopher said:

I see you like No Doubt and Weezer. Im a big fan of both too, but Tragic Kingdom was an album that suffered from being too long as was Return Of Saturn. They lost focus and dragged after a while. Rock Steady was their best effort as it felt about right. It didn't outstay it's welcome. Weezer on the other hand do it perfectly. Their albums are tight and focused and entertaining and they're just the right length. Their debut was incredible and it was only 10 tracks.

I've listened to quite a few Discs that if they were trimmed with a few songs&gave a Longer version of a Couple then you would have a tight Ass Album.

WildheartXXX said:

i know theres filler on those cd's.

and i see your point but i stick by my statement!